This thesis has attempted to define and discuss as many aspects of English crusade policy in the late thirteenth century as the source material will allow. Following a brief chronological summary of Edward's involvement in the defence of the Holy Land, three sections form the framework of this examination of English crusading practice. The first consists of a narrative history of the Lord Edward's crusade of 1270-1272; the second deals with political factors which had relevance to English crusading activity throughout the period 1264-1307; and the final section includes a detailed examination of three important aspects of thirteenth-century crusading history: the contemporary relationship between theory and practice exemplified by English policies; the legatine authority and use of canonistic doctrines underling English preaching and recruitment; and the machinery through which English policies were financed.

Historians of political development in the High Middle Ages often focus on the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries as the generations in which monarchy finally triumphed over aristocracy to create a monopoly on governing institutions in western Europe. However, it was precisely in this period that Simon of Montfort emerged from his modest forest lordship in France to conquer a principality stretching from the Pyrenees to the Rhône. A remarkable ascendancy in any period, it is perhaps especially so in its contrast with the accepted historiographical narrative. Nonetheless, Simon has been largely overlooked on his own terms, especially by English historiography. Despite the numerous works over the course of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries devoted to the Albigensian Crusade, only a handful of biographies of Simon have been published, none of which are in English. Furthermore, those French works dedicated to his life have been little more than narrative retellings of the Albigensian Crusade from Simon's perspective, with an introductory chapter or two about his family background, participation in the Fourth Crusade, and life in France. French domination of the historiography has also prevented any deep exploration of Simon's English connexions, chiefly his inheritance of the earldom of Leicester in 1206. The substantial inquest regulating this inheritance awaits publication by David Crouch, but at least forty other acts from Simon's life remain unedited, despite increased interest in the Albigensian Crusade and several having been catalogued for over a century. Though one of the aims of this thesis is to correct the lack of Anglophone attention paid to this seminal figure of the early thirteenth century, a biographical study of Simon has consequences beyond the man himself. The inheritance of his claims to the Midi by the French Crown after his death means that his documents survive in a volume uncharacteristic of a baron of his station. The dedicated narrative history of his career provided by Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay's Hystoria albigensis is likewise the most intimate prose portrait of a comital figure available from the period. Thus Simon's life is perhaps the best recorded of his contemporary peers, offering a rare insight into the priorities and means of a baron's administration of his lands and leadership of a crusade. Moreover, despite the supposed triumph of monarchy during his lifetime, Simon's meteoric career took place largely outside of royal auspices and sought crowned approval for its gains only after the fact. Simon's experience was certainly exceptional, both in itself and in the volume of its narrative and documentary records, but it nevertheless provides a challenge to an uncomplicated or teleological understanding of contemporary politics as effectively national affairs directed by kings. Rather than spend his life in the train of one particular king, as did his contemporaries William the Marshal or William of Barres, Simon's career, in its various geographical manifestations, saw him in the lordship of three different Crowns: France, England, and Aragon. Though his relations with the first of these were almost entirely amicable - if not always harmonious - he was more often in open conflict with the latter two. As a crusader, Simon was also subject to a fourth lord, the pope, for the major events of his career. But even while executing papal mandates, Simon at times came into conflict with the distant will of Rome. However, none of these lords successfully prevented Simon's ascendancy. Angevin and Barcan influence in the Midi was drastically handicapped by the Albigensian Crusade, in the latter case, definitively. And while popes may have disagreed with some particulars of Simon's prosecution of the crusade, he remained their best hope for curbing the threat of heresy. One reason for Simon's success in the face of opposition was his ability to exploit the margins of monarchical authority, retreating from his obligations of fidelity to lord in favour of another, thus presenting himself as a legitimate actor while interfering with the designs of a nominal superior. Such independence, however, required alternative bases for his own power that could not be found in the largely rhetorical refuge offered by a distant overlord. In the absence of support from above, Simon worked to cultivate relationships with his social peers and the lesser French nobility. Notably, however, outside of his immediate family, adherence to his cause more often came from his socially inferior neighbours and those with common spiritual devotions than from his wider kinship network. His extended family, of roughly equivalent social standing to himself, were more interested in following the French king in his campaigns to consolidate royal power than investing deeply in Simon's crusade. However, those with similar ideological concerns or dependent on his success saw in Simon a charismatic and effective leader worthy of their allegiance. For Simon himself, the crusade was animated by the programme of reform advocated by the Cistercians and certain Parisian theologians. His context was permeated by the reformers, especially in his close connexions with the abbey of Vaux-de-Cernay. Concerns about just war, the liberation of the Holy Land, ecclesiastical liberty, sexual morality, and the purgation of heresy espoused by Cistercians and schoolmen were reflected in Simon's career. He was more than a simple cipher for ecclesiastical priorities: his campaigns and government were ambiguous in their attitude toward mercenaries and complicit in the problem of usury. Nevertheless, Simon's crusades to both Syria and the Midi demonstrated a remarkable dedication to building a Christian republic according to the vision of the reformers. But Simon was not always a crusader, and the majority of his career - though not the majority of its records - took place in his ancestral lands in France. Though his time in the shadow of Paris does not offer the same salient examples of baronial independence as his conquest of the Midi, it does provide a crucial glimpse at the ordinary exercise of aristocratic government on a more intimate scale. His forest lordship furnished lessons of administration that would prove relevant to his rule in the Midi, such as the diplomatic projection of authority, the value of seigneurial continuity, the economic benefit of thriving towns, the necessity of an intensively participating chivalric following, and the advantage of wide ecclesiastical patronage. Similarly, Simon's brief seisin and subsequent disseisin of the honor of Leicester demonstrated the fragility of his power when many of these elements were lacking. In addition to abstract lessons of governance, his northern lands also provided the financial backing necessary for at least the initial phases of his crusading career. Thus Simon's lordship in France and England, though not nearly as autonomous as in the Midi, is far from irrelevant to his later manifestations of independence: it rather informs his later government and even made it possible.

Depuis les années 1990, des études archéométriques ont permis d’attester la production de nouveaux types céramiques en Anatolie occidentale, liée à l’installation de populations turques dans la région à partir de la fin du XIIIe siècle. Parmi ces nouveaux types figurent des céramiques dont les formes et les décors, très répandus dans le monde islamique, témoignaient de l’introduction de nouvelles techniques de fabrication.Sur la base d’un échantillonnage de 87 tessons découverts sur cinq sites turcs et trois sites de Crimée, l’étude, associant approche archéologique et analyses physico-chimiques, a permis de proposer des cadres chronologiques pour ces premières productions turques et de déterminer les techniques de fabrication de leurs revêtements – engobes et glaçures – servant au décor. La définition de ces techniques repose essentiellement sur des analyses élémentaires et structurales par MEB-EDS et par spectrométrie Raman, dont les résultats permettent de confirmer l’utilisation de nouvelles recettes et de nouveaux matériaux.Alors que les décors des céramiques byzantines étaient essentiellement constitués d’une glaçure plombifère transparente, colorée par une gamme réduite d’oxydes métalliques et reposant sur un engobe argileux, les décors des premières céramiques turques, d’époque beylik, produites dans la région, étaient bien plus variés. Leurs glaçures, témoignent d’une plus grande diversité, aussi bien dans la nature des fondants et des opacifiants, que dans celle des colorants utilisés.Considérée comme l’un des premiers types de céramiques ottomanes, la Miletus Ware présente le décor le plus élaboré. L’engobe n’est plus argileux, mais synthétique, préfigurant ainsi les productions plus tardives à pâte synthétique d’Iznik qui feront la renommée de la céramique ottomane au XVIe siècle. Notre étude a ainsi permis de caractériser et de contextualiser les évolutions techniques qui marquent la transition entre céramiques byzantines et ottomanes en Anatolie occidentale. / Since the 1990s, archaeometric studies have attested to the production of new types of ceramic in Western Anatolia, linked to the arrival of Turkish populations in the region from the end of the 13th century. Among these new types are ceramics whose shapes and decoration are very commonly found in the Islamic world, and which show the introduction of new techniques of fabrication.Taking a sample of 87 sherds discovered at five Turkish sites and three sites in the Crimea, this study, combining an archaeological approach with physicochemical analyses, enabled us to propose a chronological framework for these initial Turkish productions and to determine the techniques of fabrication of their coatings – slips and glazes – used for the decoration. The definition of these techniques relies in the main on elementary and structural analyses by SEM-EDS and by Raman spectroscopy, the results of which permit us to confirm the use of new recipes and new materials.While the decoration of Byzantine ceramics was essentially constituted of a high-lead transparent glaze, coloured by a reduced range of metallic oxides resting on a clay slip, the decoration of the initial Turkish ceramics, from the Beylik period, produced in the region, were much more varied. Their glazes attest to a greater diversity in the nature of the fluxes and opacifiers, as well as in the colorants used. Considered to be one of the first types of Ottoman ceramics, the Miletus Ware shows the most elaborate decoration. The slip is no longer clay-based but synthetic, prefiguring in this way the later production using synthetic paste of the Iznik Fritwares upon which the fame of 16th century Ottoman ceramics was based. Our study thus enabled us to characterise and contextualise the technical evolution which marked the transition from Byzantine to Ottoman ceramics in Western Anatolia.